First a couple of articles that you might have missed. via The Wall Street Journal.
Gen. Bogdan didn't reveal a target unit price for the F-35 in 2019. "The price needs to come down, no matter what," he said.The next article you should check out is here. via Foreign Policy Blog...
His comments came as Lockheed said Tuesday that it was preparing for more international sales of the F-35 in the wake of an agreement to sell at least 37 of the jets to the Netherlands, which has budgeted €4.5 billion ($6 billion) for the deal.
Uncertainty about overseas sales and the eventual tally for U.S. services remains a challenge to efforts to lower costs by boosting production rates.
The Netherlands, which spent 15 years deciding on replacing its aging F-16 fighters, becomes the seventh overseas customer for the F-35, with its initial delivery expected in 2019. The Netherlands cited defense cooperation with Belgium as part of its reason for the buying the F-35, raising the prospect that its neighbor would join other potential customers such as Singapore in evaluating the jet.
Hostage told Army leaders that, "in order to ensure the jet noise you hear over your heads in the future is friendly, I've got to pair the force down, and one of the things I think I have to give up is [the] A-10. While they were not happy, the accepted it."How did the service that led operations in Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly become the budget bitch boy?
I don't mind being vulgar but this is ridiculous. The Army is getting fucked every way possible and it isn't fighting back at all. Yeah we have Air/Sea Battle now but when it was Air/Land Battle, the indication is that the Navy didn't suffer the way the Army is about to.
I called the USAF Chief of Staff a clown for wearing the Captain America mask at the association. You know how I feel about Amos. He's a criminal in uniform and he's done more to weaken the Marine Corps than anyone or any enemy in its history. Greenert is playing a long game but that left the US Army Chief of Staff.
Now we know. He's the Air Forces bitch. He has no plan, no idea and no fight in him. His service is on the verge of being eviscerated and he hasn't said word one.
In the end Soldiers are gonna pay the price. Faith will be broken and the Army will be hollow.
Remember this though. Wars aren't won unless a skinny, testosterone filled teenager that's been taught certain skills with a combat rifle, is capable of living and operating in terrible conditions and sees it all as fun stands on a piece of ground.
A super small Army facing a mechanized, high tech Chinese foe won't do it. The Marines might win the battle but we need an effective Army to win the war. We're about to lose that Army...and its a Marine that's telling you so.
Just watch the budgets. My money is on only a couple of percentage points swinging a couple ways from Department of Army to Department of Air Force. Navy will probably stay constant.
ReplyDeleteNo one has ever been willing to change that.
i hope you're right. everyone is putting all their eggs into the airpower basket and if thats the case then artillery is about to become the new favorites of everyone .
DeleteTo be fair I think the operating environment for cannon-based CAS is about to get alot harder. SHORAD proliferation is bound to take off sooner or later with advanced systems like Pantsir being developed in light of the iraq war and highly modular systems appearing for IFVs/APCs. Germany is even developing a Vertically Launched AA weapon to protect their manouver forces (which will probably outrange the AC10s guns). I also think we will see the engagemnent envelopes of such systems expand and challange that off the AC10s stand-off weapons. Not to mention the evoloution of advanced AA systems like S400, S350E etc..etc..
ReplyDeleteActually my ideal ground force structure would revolve arround a highly modular IFV with large vertically launched AA/AT missiles at the rear, a medium calliber gun like Oerlikon 35 mm(Skysweaper) and possibly with radar on it for CIWS and side mounted ATMs and rockets (some with tungsten/du pallets for rocket interception).
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFK_NG
actually i've been thinking about that problem. the solution is to overwhelm defenses. remember the Crusader artillery system the army was developing. it could fire like 6 shells all with the same time on target.
Deletethat would overwhelm the systems that are out there now. when it gets switched (eventually) to laser based systems then those days are over but then so is close air support so its a wash.
Which brings us back to artillery, by WW1 artillery counted for about 60% of deaths on the western front and 85% of german wounded, at this stage the Royal Artillery Force exceeded the Royal Navy in size. By WW2 this figure was in parts upwards of 70%. However artillery warfare is highly underrated (but useless if you cant defend it from the air) and often relegated to a so called 'secondary role'. Even though artillery has become alot better I think that is partially offset by mechanization but it is clearly very, very important (possibly moreso than before). I think the age of infantry in a high-level conflict is reaching its end.
DeleteI forgot to mention about ADS (Active Defence Systems) like SAAB LEDS-150+, which provide a degree of survivability against tank shells. I envision the modern IFV as a super weapon. Small rockets attatched to the side of side mounted TOWS could also be used in salvos to neutralize enemy ADS or incoming fire. However you can't just put all your eggs in one basket, if you can do what the USAF did in iraq then you can will the war, however doing that is going to become harder. And as for infantry I don't know how they can survive in such a theater.
Unfortunately I don't think current us military doctrine is alligned with the changing technology.
>http://www.thefinertimes.com/Weapons-of-War/weapons-used-in-world-war-i.html
>http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/Land/Force%20Protection/LEDS/LEDS%20product%20sheet.pdf
the LEDS-150 is more designed to stop slower anti-tank missiles to protect tanks.
DeleteA tank still have 40-42 shells, and a LEDS-150 system has exactly 12 shots.
Plus, saturation fire is a thing.
SAAB is working on a version designed to defeat kinetic penetrators and this is only part of a comprehensive defensive suite, HE and opposing ADS systems could be taken care of with the cannon(and rockets) and the IFV would return fire with its own missiles. Additionally the tanks would be outnumbered as IFVs are cheaper and would have fire support from mortars/artillery. That is of course assuming that the grounds allow for tank maneuver.
DeleteSolomon, the German's already have a mechannized arty platform that can do 6 rounds time on target. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pzh2000/
ReplyDeleteWe don't need to develop our own, we just need to buy from the Germans. Currently our M109's can do a two round "hi/low" time on target mission, but the system needs an autoloader and an automatic cannon adjustment upgrade to match the capabilities of the PzH2000.
wow! sweet. then thats the future of support for the ground forces...rather back to the future. we once had to rely on artillery and it looks like we're headed that way again.
DeleteThe problem with that from a USMC perspective is that each of those systems weights about the same as a tank, consumes the same fuel as a tank, takes up as much weight on the transport as a tank(including in a LCAC). If you were to up-armour as well and go with proper modular IFVs like the new Patria AMV then you have suddenly created a massive sealift shortage. On the other hand you could go for a more transportable (and better firepower-weight), less capable system like the Portee deployed in additional T-akr and launched from mobile landing platforms and captured ports. But then you have high manning costs and a system that isn't as responsive (automatic firing, moving times). I think upgrading existing USMC M777 systems to portee standards is the best short-term stopgap solution, and work on a more weight efficent SP-ART could be undertaken. This isnt an easy problem with a simple answer...
DeletePZH2000, Crew 3
55.8/60=0.93 Tonnes Per round
55.8/10=5.58 Tonnes Per RPM Sustained
M777 Portee, Crew 6 [already have half the system]
12.3/21=0.58 Tonnes per round (min rounds)
12.3/71=0.17 Tonnes per round (max round config)
12.3/5=2.46 Tonnes Per RPM MAX
12.3/2=6.15 Tonnes Per RPM
>http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130912/DEFREG01/309120020/Patria-Nexter-Unveil-New-Vehicles-DSEi
>http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m777_portee.htm
What you're really looking for the the Artillery Gun Module/Donar 155mm self-propelled artillery system. Same electronics/infrastructure of the PZ2000 just much lighter weight.
DeleteI add a few more. Still not convinced about donnar because of it's lack of protection. Not going to go into projected costs as I believe some contractors just tried to milk for money.
DeleteDonar 155mm, Crew 2. (no defence gun)
31.5/40=0.78 Tonnes Per Round
31.5/9=3.5 Tonnes per RPM
Archer FH77B, Crew 3/4
30/20=1.5 Tonnes Per Round
30/8=2.5 Tonnes Per Round.
XM1203 NLOS-C, Crew 2
27/24=1.125 Tonnes Per Round
27/10=2.7 Tonnes per RPM
XM2001 Crusader, Crew 3
40/60=0.66 Tonnes Per Round
40/10=4.0 Tonnes per RPM
I think a mix of M777portee and some SP-art like the crusader would provide the best of both worlds. Perhaps a exoskeleton could be deployed to bring up sustained fire rates on the portee?
From the Army's perspective, self propelled cannons are the preferred method. The M777 is a great asset, but has the same limitations as the system it replaced even if it minimized those limitations. Don't get me wrong, the M777 is a great system, digitally integrated and it is the best towed howitzer in the inventory. That being said, the M777 is slow to set up, slow to displace, and a bitch to sling load. Works great from FOBs and fire bases, but it is not optimal for supporting an Armor Brigade Combat Team.
ReplyDeleteIf you want the Army to have "punch" you need SP howitzers to keep up with the Brads and Abrams when maneuvering. You need to be able to stop the track, fire a few rounds, and then start moving again as the battle moves. The USMC probably has a different set of requirements. Personally I'm all for stacking the PzH2000 cannon and fire control systems onto a Bradley chassis for comonality of parts.
roger that, but i think the requirements are merging. enemy guns still outrange ours. if the Admiral is right and we're looking at future battles where our tech is matched then having exposed gun crews is a recipe for a high body count if they're good, lucky or both. additionally i have my doubts about the ability to have on call aerial fire support. that means that we're back to the future with relying more on artillery and less on CAS. i'm thinking that we might need to rethink alot of assumptions that we've had about the type of help we're going to get from the air arm, and adjust accordingly.
Deletelets face it. we've placed a premium on rapid deployment for our artillery pieces ... that's when we thought that we'd be fighting Afghan style fights for the foreseeable future. that's changed and with this new reality its time to put many projects that were on the backburner up to the front. GCV? yeah. AMPV? HELL YEAH. JLTV. not convinced but show me why its essential and worth the added cost over the humvee and i'm on board. for the Marines, its ACV, MPC and to get aboard the Army supply chain with a quickness as soon as possible. no more reinventing the wheel if its already in inventory.
You can look At CAESAR too : combat proven, proven performance, better / equal PZH 2000 except armor. Airliftable : Perhaps droppable from C17 with parachutes..
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAESAR_self-propelled_howitzer
the CAESAR is nice, but it provides ZERO protection to the crew and the rounds are still handles alot.
DeleteIf you want to customize your CAESAR into an MRAP, you can do everything you want on this platform.
ReplyDeleteCAESAR offer stanag 2A-2B, for people inner.
The problem with ceaser is that it is about 50% heavier than the M777Portee(which the US operates half of already) and carries nearly as much ammunition to about 1/4th depending on configuration (meaning it will require resupply vehicles adding to the weight). The M777 can be towed behind or on the vehicle, fired while mounted to the vehicle and when dismounted the Portee truck could be used for other purposes or to go back and get ammunition. Don't get me wrong the french make some good stuff (like the lafylee class frigate/swordship) but I don't think the ceaser is one of them.
DeleteWhat some people seem to be forgetting is that weight will play a key role in deployability for the USMC (and even the army unless they invade canada or mexico...). The USMC need to maxamize their firepower relative to weight constraints to achieve the best results in artillery engagements. Loosing the artillery war will result in higher casualties. Obama was talking about letting illegal immigrants do military service for citizenship, the US has alot of dependencies, if you are really that concerned with casualties why cant you use some of these people, thats what rome did, put the auxillaries at the front?
>Also the brads are no longer good enough.
because it doesn't matter where a US Marine comes from. a MARINE IS NOT CANNON FODDER.
Deleteaccept losses? yes. people die in combat, but there is no such thing as a throw away Marine. the very thought of it is insulting.
i know you didn't mean to, but you crept up to a lie there. i'm old skool ....
LIGHT, DARK, all Marines. its the new crowd thats bastardized the concept with all these heritage days, but hopefully we'll fix that shit soon enough.
Oh no I don't mean it like that(and i suggest moving away from infantry), I don't see how operating M777 Portees is any less risky than operating M777s. I think that casualties are unnecessary and NOT ACCEPTABLE(but admit that the artillery systems will be high priority targets, therefore more likely to get killed). If the Enemy can deny airspace and prevent a repeat of Desert Storm then it will come down to ground warfare, and if the gap between US and opposition capacities closes then unfortunately I do see casualties rising.
DeleteIn this case I think casualty numbers will come down to who has the best artillery and fighting vehicle doctrines/force-structure/units and training. That is why the USM needs to make a serious investment in artillery (of all types, and doctrine). I would like too see each Battery(maybe 8 Portes) supported by at least 1 SHORAD system [and vehicle based ADS?](like the Pantsir, which can also serve fire/control?) with CIWS and escorted by two HMMWV(replacement) vehicles each towing a Bonus Mk2 equipped for CIWS mission(with ammo spares, equipped with scouting system[secondary role]).
>This gives 48 onsite missile CRAM(+Reloads) intercepts & dedicated intercept gun.
>http://youtu.be/1xdRXVizij4?t=5m
>Consider barrel extension for extra range.
>Consider exoskeletons to reduce strain/fatigue and increase sustained RPM.
>A higher level system like iron-dome should be considered for CRAM
>Frontal CRAM assets could also be tasked with engaging RAM which would likely hit art.
Are they brain-dead! The A-10 is one of the most capable and combat proven aircraft they have! Practically everyone on the ground loves it and its the best at CAS, and they just want to get rid of it like that!? theyre losing a ton of capability with this decision
ReplyDeletethat about sums it up. idiotic decisions result in tragic results.
Delete"A super small Army facing a mechanized, high tech Chinese foe won't do it. The Marines might win the battle but we need an effective Army to win the war. We're about to lose that Army...and its a Marine that's telling you so. "
ReplyDeleteOur army is going to be small compared to the chinese even if we put the entire budget towards it.
You're not gonna beat the chinese on the ground, the US is not gonna be an asian land power.
You could do whatever you want with the army, you could make it more advanced and better than the chinese army.
But it would still lose army to army, we saw that in WWII didn't we? Only way the US is ever gonna beat china is if we control the skies. Controlling the skies means controlling the oceans. Controlling the oceans mean we can choose were and when to engage china on the ground and weaken them from afar long before we ever do.
(this all assuming somehow nuclear weapons don't decide it all)
you are so wrong it hurts. you're contradicting yourself and this post proves it. we need a dedicated close air support airplane AND an army thats of decent size.
DeleteWW2 proved nothing. the Germans (the high tech force) was caught between two forces the US/Brits/Canadians/others on one side and an even larger threat, the Soviet Union on the other.
many think that if they only faced one of those larger but technologically behind armies that the Germans could have fought to at worst a stalemate.
by your thinking the Israeli's should have lost several times. they never out teched their enemies, their air power was advanced but they were fighting on almost all sides.
so following your reasoning the Israelis will be pushed into the sea by 2020. maybe. probably. but i would hate to see it happen. they have the Merkava, the Namera and other armored vehcles because THEY KNOW that air power isn't enough.
"we need a dedicated close air support airplane AND an army thats of decent size."
DeleteI believe you, but in context to china we don't. Thats a war that must be won in the air and at sea. Because we are not gonna win a land battle on their terms. They can afford to take 100 million losses, we can't.
"many think that if they only faced one of those larger but technologically behind armies that the Germans could have fought to at worst a stalemate."
Maybe they could have, but they would never have won an offensive land war against the USSR. Even by the end of 1941 when the US only just joined the war the tell tale signs of German defeat were there. They failed to take Leningrad, Moscow, and only really took the Ukraine in the southern sector. Then it was a question of man power, attrition, winter, and the Russian were always gonna win that game. Always. Even with the Allies help over 90% of german losses and forces were defeated on the Eastern Front. While the Allies were fighting not more than 4 divisions in N africa and later Italy the Russian took on the 166 division Werhmact for almost 3 years mostly alone on the ground.
Napoleon and the Germans and WWII serve the same lesson, western powers have no business playing with the traditional eastern land powers at their own game. We can win the battles but we don't win the war, the size and scope defeats us eventually.
What are we good at? We are good at sea, we are good at keeping a technological edge, a strategic edge too. Advocating a land focus in context to china is throwing that all out the window.
"by your thinking the Israeli's should have lost several times. they never out teched their enemies, their air power was advanced but they were fighting on almost all sides."
The reason they weren't thrown into the ocean was because their enemies were primitive early on (1949) and later they had their unrivaled air superiority to thank in the six day war.
During the Yom Kippur War the Israelis were thrown back early on because they could not bring their air power to bear. What gave the Israelis the decisive ability to push the Egyptians back to the Suez later was that they could use air power against exposed egyptian troops. More often than not it was air power that Israel really has to thank for the over arching victory of their wars.
HAVE YOU EVEN BEEN WATCHING CHINA's ARMY AND HOW ITS BEING DEVELOPED????!!!!!
Deletethe Chinese are shedding their million man army model and building a smaller more professional force. in essence they're trying to duplicate the US Army right down to vehicle types. what that means is that we need to be able to meet that enemy with overmatch firepower. we can win a land war and i hate that the trendy air/sea battle has divided that portion of the war away.
during ww2 we had to win land wars (the island hopping) in order to win the air and sea battles. its all the same fight. not separate entities.
I have been watching the Chinese very closely.
DeleteI feel their efforts just goes to reinforce what I say, they seem terrified of the idea of us controlling the skies and seas. Which is precisely why that is exactly what we should be focusing on doing.
If china is trying as hard as it is right now to deprive of us of our traditional advantages we should not resign ourselves to this. They are afraid of our air and sea power and not our army for a reason. Because our army isn't going to be what defeats them no matter what we do with it.
"during ww2 we had to win land wars (the island hopping) in order to win the air and sea battles. its all the same fight. not separate entities."
And during that WWII island hopping the fact is the island land war was a MINOR sideshow. Many islands and jap bases were just bypassed completely and ignored. Because once they were cut off by sea and air they were useless and not a threat. Pacific war was a naval war, who won on the island was decided by who controlled the ocean around it. (this is why we lost the Philippines and other places during the first 6 months)
And when it came to the REAL land war for the US the pacific on Mainland Japan? Lets face it, we didn't have the stomach for it. We dropped the A bombs instead...
I really just don't see the sense in suggesting we focus on fighting on the ground against the most populous country the world has ever seen. We should be avoiding that as much as possible and fighting on the ground when we are certain of victory and the enemy is basically already beaten.
Those japs the marine took out in the pacific? They were defeated and waiting to die the moment the got cut off and lost control of the oceans that supplied them. I respect the marines more than I can ever express but that is the strategic reality of it.
its obvious.
Deleteyou worship at the feet of airpower and nothing else matter except to make sure that the USAF has shiny new airplanes, max perdiem and luxury accomodations.
we're talking totally different things. you're not changing my mind and i'm not changing yours.
I guess, sorry if it makes things unsavory to talk about.
DeleteI just can't imagine the US as the power it is without it being unequivocally #1 in the skies. It's been that war since the end of WWII, USSR reigned on land, but the US has been the premier air and naval power of the world ever since.
Changing that formula feels scary and risky for a country of our kind of military traditions. That's all. That is what keeps me up at night if anything, and thats what the Chinese are trying all hells to make happen.
no you're becoming annoying. what you're spouting is pure nonsense.
Deleteif anything we're in the interwar years. i don't know what the next break through in defense tech will be but stealth is (in my opinion and i can't explain it) about to become irrelevant and useless. maybe its lasers, maybe its an increase in computer processing that analyzes even the smallest emittions coming from an airplane...i don't know but i do know that if we are in an interwar period similar to what we saw in the 1920's and 30s then all this is nonsense. instead what we will see are practice wars with obsolete equipment waiting for the real thing to kick off.
oh and if you want to talk about air superiority in the Pacific then look at Vietnam. we had fabulous air superiority and didn't get the job done.
it takes more than fancy jets to win the war. and no. it doesn't make me lose sleep, it makes me angry that the air power zealots are having their time in the son.
greedy, selfish, self important and self absorbed. thats the airpower types.
"no you're becoming annoying. what you're spouting is pure nonsense"
DeleteOk... I don't need to answer to any of that.
I could tear it apart, but I don't even need to.
Right now the USAF has more personnel assigned to it than the US Army. Right now the USAF is talking about downsizing their fleet of tactical aircraft. Proven tactical aircraft. We let the USAF hog the budget, buy nifty toys, then declare them "strategic" and never deploy those toys. The F-35 has been sold as a "silver bullet solution" to people, and they are convinced that this one system will solve all problems. This is ignoring a basic tennet of warfare, you don't need one system, you need the right mix of systems and capabilities.
ReplyDeleteCavalry sucks on its own. Armored Brigade Combat Teams don't have the dismounts for effective urban operations. Stryker Brigades lack the heavy punch needed for effective spearhead operations. Infantry Brigade Combat Teams don't travel fast or hit hard in open terrain. Take the strengths of each, and use it to cover the weaknesses of the others, and now you have an effective fighting force.
The USAF is literally ignoring this rule with their "high, fast, and stealthy" mentality of aircraft. We need low and slow to support the ground. The "lets cut the C-27 and A-10 to keep the F-35" is just one more reason to let the Army have fixed wing assets again, because we really do care about low and slow.
wow! WELL SAID!!! this is now a post.
DeleteThing with low and slow is that cheap tools like a javelin missile system fired by a shooting soldier takes the whole thing down. Low and slow is becoming too vulnerable for ever improving weapons... How can you not see that?
DeleteJust because it works well in Iraq, Afghanistan, even Vietnam doesn't say anything about a day where maybe even insurgents will have access to that kind of stuff. Much less against any decently equipped enemy, that low and slow is increasingly becoming suicide.